|Nutritional status and quality of life in gynecological cancer|
|First Author, Year, Study Place||Data Collection Period||Study Design||Sample Size||Nutritional Assessment||Quality of Life Assessment||Groups being compared||Key results||Conclusion|
|Gil KM, 2007, USA ||January 2001 to July 2004||Prospective longitudinal study, consecutive case series||
157 requiring surgery for a pelvic mass or a positive endometrial biopsy (endometrial cancer)
Ovarian cancer: n = 33
Endometrial cancer: n = 45
Benign adnexal mass: n = 79
1. SF-36 for General Health Status
|BMI was used as a continuous variable||
Increasing BMI was negatively correlated with physical, social and functional well being.
BMI continued to be a significant independent variable included in the model for social well-being, p = 0.03.
|BMI was significantly associated with QoL. As treatment options become more complex, these variables are likely to be of increasing importance in evaluating treatment effects on QoL.|
Lis et al.
Lis et al. Nutrition Journal 2012 11:27 doi:10.1186/1475-2891-11-27